The De-Militarized Zone: Politics and Religion in the Middle East

AMMAN, JORDAN – The swastika and anti-Israel graffiti spray-painted on the wall of a church parking lot I pass on the way to my school in central Amman reminds me daily of the blurred line between religious and political beliefs, particularly here in the Middle East. In fact, while referring to it as a “line” is familiar terminology, it’s woefully insufficient to suitably explain the relationship between these two facets of human identity. The inevitable overlap between politics and religion more aptly resembles a mine-laden de-militarized zone: a volatile and uncertain area separating two realms that have more in common than either is willing to admit.

In a presentation given to foreign students at Jordan University, Father Nabil Haddad, a Greek Melkite Catholic Priest and Executive Director of the Jordanian Interfaith Coexistence Research Center, advocated that Jordan is the paradigm of religious cooperation and tolerance in the Middle East. He argued that Jordanian Muslims live in harmony with the Christian minority. In addition, he claimed Jordanians, the majority of whom identify with some faith, respect other religious people and are tolerant of the faiths of their fellow countrymen. Thus, Jordan lacks religiously motivated internal violence that plagues its geographical neighbors, such as Lebanon or Egypt. Though his sweeping generalizations ignored salient points, I decided to pick a big juicy bone with his argument. I asked in Arabic, “If Jews made up a large portion of the population here today, would there be such inter-religious cooperation in Jordan?”

His answer was revealing, yet ultimately unsatisfying. He told me that any Muslim or Christian in Jordan who respects his or her faith must respect Jews. He said that Muslims, in particular, get caught in the trap wherein they mistake political issues for religious ones, and direct their frustration with political problems toward the Jewish people. However, religion has nothing to do with conflicts between political entities. Jewish, Christian and Muslim people need to resolve their issues with each other, learn to cooperate as fellow People of the Book, and separate their political views from their religious beliefs before any political resolution can be achieved.

Easier said than done.

Despite the prevalence of extreme political Islamic parties, such as Hamas, Palestinian secularist movements for statehood still retain significant support today. However, in my opinion, the infusion of Islam into the dialogue surrounding Palestinian nationalist goals has carried over to the interpersonal level wherein many Palestinians attach their Muslim faith to their national Palestinian identities. Thus, the issue of Palestinian statehood becomes an affirmation of their Muslim identity instead of a political debate aimed at achieving peace, and further adds to the relevance of faith in politics.

As for Israel, it’s identity as “the Jewish state” ties outside perceptions of its politics to perceptions of its religion. The Knesset is not unified regarding the issue of Palestinian statehood, and it is impossible to say that there is a collective Jewish will–political or religious. Yet, by disempowering Arabs in the West Bank and Gaza, the actions of the Israeli army and government are perceived as enacting the will of the Jewish people. From an outside perspective, the Jewish faith is responsible for the Gaza siege, Israeli occupation, etc. thereby politicizing the role of religion.

Both Judaism and Islam have religious claims to land in the region, notably Jerusalem, and these matters of faith play a role in the present political conflict over borders and land rights. Though politicians are writing the proposals and representing each side, we have to ask ourselves where their motivations are rooted. The source of conflict not only resides in the antagonistic political history between Palestinians and Israelis, but within the Scriptures and religious histories of Islam and Judaism, which hallowed the land in Jerusalem making both parties want to administer it.

Unfortunately, the faith of the “other” has become symbolic of the adversary in this conflict from both perspectives in each society. Animosity and blame aren’t only directed toward Israel or Hamas, but toward ethnic and religious identity, such as the Arab Muslim or the Jew. Political agreements have failed to achieve coexistence between believers of both faiths. Conflict resolution through interfaith dialogue or cooperation is part and parcel of political compromise and reconciliation.

As for the priest, while I appreciate his candor, idealism, and incredible achievements to increase interfaith cooperation in Jordan, his views were unrealistic, and fell short of identifying a cure to reduce the ill will between Arab Muslims and Jews. Unfortunately, like the swastika at the church in Amman, the discord among religions in the Middle East will not be erased until we recognize that faith is intimately connected to the politics.

This is a very well written piece and valid point. religion and politics are connected. That said, Before getting your panties in a bunch about his answer to your question, pay attention to your own question. You completely begged the question. You had an answer of your own before you asked. Of course he will give an idealistic answer, you left him no room to move, did you want him to say “well prolly not.” The history of this conflict is muddled with religious politics however, he did not refute that. What he seemed to be advocating was a splitting of the two; If one truly respects his/her religion, he will respect other religions. many would agree with that statement.
Religion is connected to politics, but not in of itself, it is connected by the way that people use the two together in specific contexts. Don’t think you schooled the priest by asking a hypothetical that has no bering on reality, Muslims and Jews alike should heed his words about respecting their religions. Even if this is not a cure to an epidemic, BE CAREFUL, because you did not ask for one.

Here’s a brief on exactly who the Aryan People of the Book :
Native Americans, Black Sea Germans, West Africans, African Americans, Ethiopians, Mauritanians, Mexicans, Miwok, Moroccans, Egyptians and Romani. Only the Mestizo tribes fall under the category of Blacks (Brown Skins / Aryans). They were also known as men of all men.
The Swastika and double Eagle or double Raven were symbols used as markers to indicate the region belonged to Blokumann Land.
During war times the white mestizoes had to use black paint to cover his face for night time warfare in order to blend in with the rest of his tribe and go undetected.
In the Black Sea region they were known as the Bassarabs (Bassarabians) and their religious practice was call sometimes called the Four Religions and they formed into Unitas Fratrum (Unity Brothers). During the Great Transatlantic migration they came under the names Schwarze & The Union.
After the Union defeated the Confederation and ended Slavery they became known as The United States (Unity Fratrum / Blokumannland / United Brethrens / Mestizoes / Aryans).
Anything other than what I outlined above would be White Supremacy in whole. It would be mythology.